August 14, 2011

[A]ides from Bachmann’s camps have privately -- and sometimes publicly -- disparaged Palin to an extent that has caused growing exasperation in Palin world....

“It is so pervasive and so continuous that it can’t be rogue people doing it without the understanding and encouragement from the candidate herself,” a Palin supporter in Iowa told RCP. “The entire Bachmann team has gone around the state saying Palin is a lightweight and a quitter and saying that Sarah’s about to endorse Michele. Bachmann’s campaign is radioactively dirty. They are shameless.”...

“She got the vice-presidential thing handed to her,” [said Bachmann’s soon-to-be campaign manager, Ed Rollins.] “She didn’t go to work in the sense of trying gain more substance. She gave up her governorship.”...

“There will have to be distinctions, and I think they should make those on policy and style, but I don’t think either of them will be served by attempting to take down the other one,” Iowa Tea Party activist Ryan Rhoades, who recently endorsed Bachmann, told RCP. “Getting into the fight that the media so desperately wants to see, I think, would be a detriment to both.”

Yeah... well... everybody loves a cat fight. It's entertaining. But the truth is, you don't need any actual fighting between these 2 candidates for Palin to have a problem with Bachmann. Bachmann is crowding Palin out of the race. Bachmann is Palin2, and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability.

By the way, Bachmann was great on "Meet the Press" today. She is excellent at not letting the interviewer control her. She interrupts appropriately and stands her ground. She has planned, neat responses to the stuff that they will use to try to mess her up — like her statements about gay people — and she resists pressure to restate or elaborate those responses. She is ready for prime time.

Palin and Bachmann have already gamed this out in multiple situations and have you thinking just what it is (whatever it is) they want you to think, according to their schedule.You are doing their work now.Keep it up!

AP, without Rahm running the show, how the hell are Obama-Biden going to pull off a big win?

The press may not like the GOP and prefer the Democrats, but never forget they love themselves most of all. If they smell blood in the water with Obama-Biden, they are likely to turn on them. (This is exactly what happened with McCain--he was adored by the press until his idiot handlers told him to stop courting them in July/August 2008.)

That Bachmann hired Rollins makes me nervous. Rollins is an idiot. Remember how he worked for Perot, and then turned on him? Remember the NJ "walking around money" scandal? Remember the constant bad mouthing of Palin during 2008?

I too was impressed by Michelle Bachmann's poise and response ability. All 3 Sunday Show pundits spoke well - in fat were rather amazed - at how she has become a serious contender. I agree with many, if not most, of her views

That said - we already have a President with too little experience when he was elected - and the entire world can see how that has worked out. Michelle Bachmann is not ready.

Excited to see how 32 year winner Rick Perry handles the national campaign trail. He's pretty much got Bachmann beat on most everything.

Stay tuned . . .

PS - I think DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is a babe. She was on Face the Nation to defend Obama this morning after Michelle Bachmann spoke. I just start laughing at the knot's she twists herself into in her Obama defenses and actually feel sorry for her. She does this every time she appears and it's getting to be a little sad.

...as for any 'feud', doesn't that take two participants? so far, all i see from palin is support for her fellow GOPers. seems that this..ahem,'catfight' (really, ann?!)..is just in blowhard ed rollins imagination.

The other really fascinating thing about Bachmann (besides the question of whether this is some Truman Show-esque practical joke that the world is playing on me) is that so many of you think she might actually be allowed to get the nomination.

It's fine that she can have a little fun playing around at the straw poll but eventually the deciders are going to step in and make it clear that Bachmann doesn't get to be the nominee. And that's going to be pretty funny considering all the people that are pretending she should be taken seriously.

Palin is much more a libertarian than Bachmannn. I don't think Palin is running this year but she is more electable, I think. The problem with both of them is the thing the media has about conservative women.

It's fine that she can have a little fun playing around at the straw poll but eventually the deciders are going to step in and make it clear that Bachmann doesn't get to be the nominee.

That's right, man. It's the Republican stratagery. Bait and switch. Hot Tea Party mama to give everyone a boner, and then BAM!, the Deciders come in with...Eisenhower. Oh yeah, I won't caught off guard with that one. Thanks for the heads-up.

Two and a half-years as a highly-regarded governor versus 2 terms in the House of Representatives?

Building home-state coalitions & getting things done, before blitzing onto the national stage, giving some of the best conservative orations since Reagan, and maintaining an aggressive media juggernaut since, versus-- what, some Focus on the Family type "advocacy" and leading the impressionable (and rare on the ground) Iowa Republicans to like her?

Bachmann simply has no just claim on highest office.

What is Althouse seeing here, Thatcher in the making? Ann Althouse, let it be admitted, is at least *capable* of extending rope ironically.

Two short-resume Presidents in a row (three if you count Clinton: quick enough a study on some things, but still way out of the reality loop, compared to his immediate predecessor).

But frankly: if another President is going to be elected on 'celebrity', I'd rather it be Palin, who has been in the fore of the fight longer and harder than, say, Bachmann or Perry; and who has shown (though in narrow circumstances) a real capacity for executive leadership. Also, a charisma that isn't just projected onto her by people looking for the latest saviour; and a sense that we truly know what she stands for, and what she doesn't idly back away from.

If she winds up as sec. of Commerce or Ambassador to Britain in the Romney administration, fine. At this point, if Palin's not in then I'm definitely siding with the forces of Romney (or Rudy, one can pray).

Jack Tapper got Palin's best quote, out'a Iowa. She said, "Well, at least the gloves are off." Meaning she heard the GOP candidates give good fight. (Too bad they just keep punching each other.)

What's the contest? To see whose hair moves first?

I'm waiting for Paul Ryan to really give it to Bachmann. Since she stepped out to the cameras at the exact moment he stepped up to the plate to give the GOP response to the SOTU. What you don't see happens backstage.

Definitely I sense some fickle grasping after right-wing Messiahhood that's analogous to the Progressive annointing of the O four years ago.

Maybe I'm being unfair to Perry, and there's time for me to sort my head out if he's the real deal; but I'd rather just be skeptical now instead of getting the Sinatra vapors like a horny teenybopper.

Someone on the right can just as soon mouth platitudes about "federalism" or what you will, as Obama could about the things his hardcore supporters thought he was gonna do-- lower the tides or whatever the hell.

Romney, no doubt, knows how the world really operates. Though his high officeholding itself is relatively limited in span, he's clearly boned up on every aspect of world affairs for a long time. And we need a grind for that.

Palin's megadrive doesn't seem to extend to the autodidacticism that we might want her to exercise as she (maybe) prepares for a run.

Then again, maybe that's something else she keeps close. Her multipronged savvy at blitzing the media is more impressive than Bachmann just, say, not blowing her cool on Sunday chat (something Palin would've achieved sweatlessly before the media had its crosshairs planted on her).

I'd rather it be Palin, who has been in the fore of the fight longer and harder than, say, Bachmann or Perry; and who has shown (though in narrow circumstances) a real capacity for executive leadership.

Whoa! In the fore of the fight longer than Perry? He's been governor of Texas since 2000. He spoke at one of the first TEA Party rallies.

Try looking up his speeches that he's given over the past couple of years. He's written 2 books espousing limited government principles. That you can say he hasn't been "in the fore of the fight" only shows that you haven't been paying attention.

You can agree or disagree with him, but he's actually been getting the job done while Bachmann has been busy talking about it.

Bachmann only won re-election because she brought Palin and Pawlenty in to campaign for her, and now she's repaying them for their help by lying about Pawlenty and trashing Palin?

(She lied about him saying "the era of small government was over." He said it, but he was quoting someone else saying it. Her campaign admitted that they knew that before the debate and they intentionally used it to smear Pawlenty.)

Sorry. We don't need any more backstabbing two-faced candidates.

She can go back to her backbencher status in the House. She isn't suited to be chief executive.

Definitely I sense some fickle grasping after right-wing Messiahhood that's analogous to the Progressive annointing of the O four years ago.

This! If we nominate someone with little experience, like either of these candidates, we lose our trump card. Obama will say, look, things haven't been great but I have the one thing I lacked before and that my opponent lacks: experience.

Don't throw away this opportunity on some unknown, people. And don't let Obama make things even worse. Please.

@Seven Machos: Bill Clinton was a policy wiz with a Nixonian head for the business of governing, plus the 12 years in and out in the Arkansas mansion were by no means negligible prep.

On the other hand: he wasn't coming into that field in '91 as a superstar, in a year Dem superstars were giving it a pass.

Esp. in the first 2 years in the White House, he floundered, in spite of (partly because of) his restless intellect and high energy. Most esp. on foreign affairs, which he grossly neglected in his pursuit of the chimera of an LBJ-level domestic landmark. He did, let's decently admit, make considerable adjustments that did a good deal to right the course of state later.

Of course W. had a lot of hires from his father's very professional operation, and that didn't necessarily help him. So I can't just excuse Palin by saying, she'll have a great brain trust. And we don't know what kind of brain trust she'd really *want*, anyway.

So I grant that, in advance of any vapors I may further display on Sarah's behalf . . . .

I don't have interest in seeing Michelle's tits or cooch but I would definitely enjoy seeing Palin on top of me as she rides my hog and has her hair in her mouth as she is yelling, "give me that big moose hog you fucking faggot".

I have the one thing I lacked before and that my opponent lacks: experience.

And pretty much everyone will hear that and respond internally, all of it bad.

Obama has shown no sign that he's learned anything in 2.5 years. Personally, I don't think he's going to be able to show he's learned anything in the next 1.5 either, so I'm pretty sure Obama's "experience" is going to be what gets him shit-canned in 2012.

nothing BETTER (sorry for the edit) prepares you to be the most powerful person in the world than two non-consecutive terms as Governor of Arkansas

Clinton was governor of Arkansas for something like 12 out of 14 years. The governor's term in Arkansas is two years (or was when Clinton was president). Clinton was also attorney general before he was governor.

While Sarah Palin has to join forces with someone. So, I take her bus, ONE NATION. And, Trump. And, his 747-private jet plane. And, I think they're gonna make political music, together.

When? When Trump decides he won't lose money on the Apprentice.

And, then? Well, then. Besides "ONE NATION" buttons. I expect DUMP-O ... And, I expect flank maneuvers that go after the man who says he loves to run from behind ... And, they bite his rear end every which way to Sunday.

Will I cry if they don't run?

Dunno.

I was there with Ross Perot. But he was such a lunatic, I didn't mind that Ed Rollins, mad enough, made comments. Probably the best ones he's ever made.

No. Bush II and, especially, Obama have made it absolutely clear that we need presidents with substantial executive experience.-------------

I hope that is what happens next election cycle. But when Obama came on the scene, the talk was how bad can he be to Bush and at least we will have our historic president. Now when a Palin or a Bachmann comes along, the talk will be again how bad can they be compared to Obama and at least we will have a woman president. But I am sure sexist attitudes (or sudden enlightenment) will prevail and someone will say no, they are too inexperienced. Women will lose again for not winning. The shame is a woman (and a black woman) with Obama's resume would have been laughed out of the race but he got to be selected president.

pm -- We need not plumb those psychological depths. The Obama phenomenon was a strange one, and it did seem a bit like a yearlong coronation, but McCain was an atrocious candidate as well.

Obama's not going to lose because of race. He's going to lose because he has been an incredibly lousy president. I hope neither of these two women win because they are grossly inexperienced. Not because they are women.

A lot of my fellow deficit hawks are going to have to get used to the grim fact that righting the fiscal ship is probably going to get done (if at all) in increments of a trillion at a time-- if at all.

It's like emptying a clogged bathtub full of water with an empty lotion bottle.

So yes, coalition-building is going to be crucial. A mere *advocacy* president is going to be useless on this.

How well did Dubya do with his "political capital" on modest 'privatization' of social security? Bueller? Bueller?

So yes, probably I'll throw my hat in with Romney, or the better-than-Romney if it comes along (thank goodness the insomnia-curing T-Paw is gone!).

Can she deliver a good idea on the fly without repeating all the platitudes and cliches with a good voice on camera?

Can Palin tap dance on the head of a pin?

Come on. Give the woman her due, without asking that she can go back in time and independently record the Couric interview.

Palin moves the debate with the "written word." Funny, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and when you come down to it, the Gettysburg Address were just examples of what the "written word" could do.

Now we want the "written word" to tap dance and show some wardrobe malfunction.

Yes, Obama didn't have executive experience on his resume. And yes, I like Seven's suggestion that two terms as governor be a requirement, but you've got to remember that, for whatever reason, the two other candidates Obama campaigned against in the primary (and the one in the general) didn't have much executive experience, either.

@Peter: Let's charitably remember that Hillary Clinton, whether loved or hated, was a "co-President" in the early years of Bill's White House.

All accounts I've read agree that her real power (and portfolio) were decreased in the wake of the Hillarycare debacle.

But her political chops and her imprint were all over those eight years in Washington. Even before Lewinskygate, she was a vital inside partner in Bill redefining himself to the center, against the interests of disillusioned prog insiders like Bob Reich.

Her Senatorial career was not negligible either. She entered that body with outsize prestige; and frankly, had she run in 2004 noone on the left would have dared challenge her credentials for the office.

Ludicriously, I heard many a leftie pundit in '07-08 refer to Obama's "several" years in the Senate. "Several"! Between swearing in and permament campaigning, did he get to the 2 and a half mark?

Seven Machos said...Obama's not going to lose because of race. He's going to lose because he has been an incredibly lousy president. -----------That is now but he did get in because of his race. Race trumps gender. The real election was between Hillary and Obama in the primary. McCain was irrelevant, even to many Republicans who stayed home on election day.

BTW, nice to see someone get Bill Clinton. I find it hard to believe that people don't at least get an inkling of the depths of his intellect. How can they not?

Althouse, I know you think, but do you think at all about some of the things you write in relation to reality?

You write this: "Bachmann is crowding Palin out of the race. Bachmann is Palin2, and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability."

This is plain silly. Bachmann who has no record of accomplishment besides winning elections is "a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability"? Bachmann who has a slight grasp of facts, historical and otherwise, is an improvement? I'm ROFLMAO!

Bachmann is Mini-Me. She wants to be Sarah Palin. She wishes she had Palin's record of achievement, Palin's acuity.

Palin took 2 hours to walk 100 yards in Iowa, asked her people on the ground not to do a write-in at the straw poll, and you say Bachmann is edging Palin out? In what fantasy of yours is this happening?

Michelle Bachmann is the GOP's Barack Obama. No wonder you find her attractive. Style and symbolism over substance.

Lucius, I think you are failing to take into account the idea that, had Hillary Clinton won, the presidency would have been in the hands of 2 families for 24-28 years. Somewhere, deep within the American psyche, there were folks who didn't want to go there and were looking for any reason to back someone else.

When Bill Clinton was president, I did not like him politically but, in my heart, I knew I liked him as a person.

I say I did not like him, but that was what I felt I should feel. But, in truth, after 1994, I liked all his policies. I was always happy with his support of free trade. I supported welfare reform. The economy was humming. If that was happenstance, I credit Clinton for happenstance.

It has been after his presidency that I have realized what a great man Clinton is.

I must disagree, however, with the implication that intelligence propels men in politics. I don't think it does. I think what propels them is doing the right thing by people, which, of course, requires intelligence, but it's a different kind than what gets you an A in organic chemistry.

I was not even thinking of Couric interview when I said that. I see her on Hannity and it is such a pain to listen to her. Believe me, I want her to do well. I am all for women doing well in this arena. I even gushed in 2008 that as a young mother of 5 and all that she would get rid of many stereotypes. But I am still waiting for her to grow beyond what I saw of her in 2008.

had Hillary Clinton won, the presidency would have been in the hands of 2 families for 24-28 years

I also agree with this. What a great discussion. Let's meet every Sunday night!

I add, however, that it's overrated. I was big on it in 2008, not so much now. I'd take Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton now over any number of Republicans (or, naturally, Democrats), and retroactively to 2008 if that were possible.

I'll take nepotism and pseudo-royalty over cult of personality failure any time (though both are bad).

On the other hand, I also stand by my assertion that a wealth of experience in Arkansas politics isn't necessarily a great predictor of success in the office of the President.

The only thing that MIGHT prepare you to be President is to be an active Vice President. Having said that, can we all say a "Thank You" to Whomever that Al Gore fucked up his home state in 2000?

I would say the only thing that scares me in a Presidential candidate is what is unknown. I know a lot about Palin. Actually, I know more about Palin than I do about Obama.

This isn't an accident, I'm sure.

I know Perry got some awful grades in college. Okay, I did too. I know Palin surfed through some Institutions of Higher Learning. Shows an intrepid nature, and a commitment I like.

I don't even know what classes Obama took in his academic career.

This isn't an accident, I'm sure.

Palin would be a fine President; W. and his dad were good Presidents because they had the right temperament. Same with Reagan, and for that matter Clinton. (Actually, Reagan to W was a very good run of Presidents. Hope I live long enough to see some quality analysis of that.)

Obama is as bad as he is because he thinks he deserves the office, and that really the office doesn't deserve him. He's correct in the second part.

Palin is not in the race, so how can she be crowded out of something she's not in? Rather, the mere spectre of a Palin candidacy scares Bachmann and Rollins because Palin would suck all the oxygen out of the room.

Bachmann is Palin2, and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability.

Gravitas maybe, but Palin more than makes up for it in charisma. Electability? Bachmann is less electable than Palin. Going from the House to the presidency is practically unprecedented. Bachmann won't succeed. The most Bachman can hope for is the VP slot.

"Mark said...Palin is a hunter. Hunters find a position and wait for the shot. There's no need to look for trouble. You deliver trouble.

If you look at what she's done from frickin' Facebook, you can see the strategy."

She's terrific policy person so much so that they all copy from her.

Palin sure is patient, and it's a great delight watching her strategy unfold. She sits on the sidelines and waits to jump in. Meantime, Obama reveals his strategy for attacking Romney and the rest, the LSM attacks the lesser lights like Bachmann and Perry, the weaker ones drop out. All of them have blown lots of bread, and none of them have the base. Palin will have money, the base, and Thor's hammer which she's been using since 2008 to pound Obama's numb nuts into the ground.

"Gravitas." Gravitas, my ass. Obama was thought to have "gravitas" and a first class temperament. Now the whole country knows he's a cold sonofabitch who can't think well enough to make a sandwich much less how to solve the problems he caused the country.

@Peter Hoh: There are plenty of people who explicitly argued that incipient dynasticism was an argument to have a Bush/Clinton-free race in '08.

But that won't stop a Jeb/Hillary bash in '16.

And no: I'm certainly *not* forgetting that Bill's first 2 years were his weakest, or that Hillary was then at her strongest in policy portfolio.

Two (actually three, counting Gore) giant egos were struggling within what should be the uniform policy house of the WH. As the only legitimate authority, Bill had finally to relieve her of some of those duties. The failure of Hillarycare does not, however, explain Bill's foreign affairs disasters. Insofar as he wanted to be a Johnson domestically, Hillary was a vital tool in his efforts.

And, as I say, she was very receptive to Dick Morris' influence and facilitating Bill in walking over his center-left idolators on the path to Welfare Reform and reelection.

Her astuteness, and experience in its exercise, cannot afford easy dismissal.

had Hillary Clinton won, the presidency would have been in the hands of 2 families for 24-28 years---------------never agreed with this. I wrote on another thread that marriage between equals should not be a curse and should definitely not undermine the woman's progress. It takes a different kind of sophistication to look at these people as separate individuals. If Bush II was eminently qualified and independently successful, why not? Why should he be penalized for being his father's son? That it did not turn out that way is a different matter. The man had not done anything until he was 40 and found his Jesus then and shaped up. On the other hand, Hillary's situation was different in that she was independently successful and nobody could question her potential and the possibilities. The fact that she was a woman attempting this and it was snatched away in the worst possible manner and that Obama did not even measure up will be the downfall of the Democratic party at least in the near future. What a waste.

If Bachmann was so much better, why disparaged Palin? Palin supported her for reelection. At some point, she needs Palin's endorsement. She behaves like that guy in Alaska. After the Palins put him on the map to win the Republican nomination, he turned around to sneer at Palin. Well, we have Senator Daddy's little girl from Alaska.

Everyone knows Palin is not going to run. Her polls told her, Fox News told us, otherwise she would not be a commentator there. She wants to be the king maker. Yet Bachmann is so insecure to attack a non-candidate. Like candidate generic who dropped out today. His attacks on Bachmann aka punch under his weight, disqualified him in Iowa. Bachmann's disloyalty will cause her plenty. It's stupid. She is better off to use every waking moment to attack the One in the White House as if she's already his chosen opponent. Why waste time and energy to attack Palin? Why not attack Romney or Perry who are in the race? Because Palin is a woman? What does that say about Bachmann?

Bachmann creamed Gregory. I like the way she used a couple of his questions as an opportunity to reveal Obama’s part in the debt negotiations and easily shifted the blame to where it belongs. Gregory probably regrets he bought it up. NBC viewers so rarely hear the truth.

Twice she used a question to talk about the plight of the small business owner and entrepreneur in this uncertain economic climate. She gave examples using people instead of trying to construct a hypothetical. And she hammered Obama on the military pay and SS checks fright tactic. It’s going to take a real slick tool to unbolt Bachmann. Gregory’s counterparts on the other outlets will be gunning for her all the more now that she has spanked Gregory. They’ll all want to be the one who bags her.

I liked her before. I like her a little better now.

I like Palin too but Bachmann handles a hostile TV interview way better than Palin. Bachmann actually seemed to be toying with Gregory at one point. Gave him a knowing look and what looked suspiciously like a smirk.

Coyote finally has the roadrunner in a trap. But at the last second Coyote’s arms close around nothing but air and he looks out bug-eyed at the audience as it dawns on him that he is falling off a high cliff. In the distance we hear, “Beep, beep.”

It will be interesting to see if Perry does as well as Bachmann at one of these little gotcha sessions. See if he can boot-scoot into the lion’s den and emerge unbitten.

Bachmann is no Palin2. She has the gravitas of a member of the House of Representatives, none of which has ever been elected President. The picture of her munching on a corn dog shows she has no self awareness. You would never see Palin do that. Bachmann will never be President. She is not sharp enough to debate Obama. Palin will tear him a new one.

Palin has some low-level political background (Wasilla) in prep for her governorship that undoubtedly taught her something.

Her touring and provoking count for something of a kind too. Like Reagan's spells on the radio (in his case, with essays he actually composed).

But it must be accepted: neither Bachmann, Palin or Obama's two-year stints can magically be strained into the seasoning generally demanded in the modern Presidency.

Woodrow Wilson may be anathema to a lot of people, but in his case the books (serious stuff, and prolific), the academy (President of Princeton, a BFD at the time & involved lots of 'politics') and the two years (NJ, in an historic gubernatorial career that shook the state to its corrupt foundations) were what that stuff has to look like if you want to call it Presidential qualifications.

Compared to that record, Obama's books, academics, and two years in office are a parody.

"You would never see Palin do that. Bachmann will never be President. She is not sharp enough to debate Obama. Palin will tear him a new one."

Bachmann is good with TV interviews/Hardball, ect. She holds her own.

Perry is much more likely, but Bachmann could win it if she was nominated. Maybe not in ordinary times, but unemployment is over 9%. In some ways she's got a better chance then Palin because she doesn't have Palin's negatives.

“The entire Bachmann team has gone around the state saying Palin is a lightweight and a quitter and saying that Sarah’s about to endorse Michele. Bachmann’s campaign is radioactively dirty. They are shameless.”

@Canuck: How does Bachmann have Palin's positives? An executive record of some sort? Effervescent wit (writing on her hand to "Mom")? Personal hotness?

Look, Bachmann has a crapload of explosive negatives just waiting to get played up in the world at large.

Evangelicals in Iowa, God bless them, are not the electorate at large.

And understand, huge longshot as a Bachmann nom would be, liberals aren't going to waste their fire too early.

But you can always see what kind of convo Terri Gross and Ryan Lizza are getting up to for a foretaste. What the right wouldn't touch with Wright, the left will do in spades to Bachmann when/if the time has come.

It will be interesting to see if Perry does as well as Bachmann at one of these little gotcha sessions. See if he can boot-scoot into the lion’s den and emerge unbitten.

This is an interesting meme that I keep seeing over and over: the assumption that Perry has not been tested by the media.

He's been the governor of the 2nd largest state in the country for a decade - the largest in the 48. He's been a very public figure and the head of the Republican Governor's Association.

Do you honestly think he's never had to deal with tough interviewers before? That he hasn't had to deal with hostile Democrats before? Do you have ANY clue how rough-and-tumble Texas politics are?

There's a reason that Texas politicians like LBJ, Bush, Perry, DeLay, etc. become national figures in politics. It's the political equivalent of New York: if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.

Don't forget that Texas is only 1 of 4 majority-minority states. You don't win there by only appealing to a small segment of the population, and you don't survive long if you're not politically adept.

Has he experienced a full-on presidential campaign? No. But then again neither has Romney. He never got beyond the primaries in 2008. And Obama has never experienced a real rough-and-tumble campaign against a capable opponent ready to go the mat either.

No matter how hard the media tries to cover for him, they won't be able to sell the "all things to all people" candidate again in 2012. All these negative things that liberal columnists are saying today trying to distance themselves from Obama will be liberally quoted in every GOP campaign ad throughout next year when they attempt to come to his rescue next year.

The 2012 campaign is going to be the nastiest, dirtiest, ugliest campaign ever experienced in this country. Democrats know that if they lose this one that they be losing much more than the Oval Office: their entire ideology and the levers of power that they have used to maintain power for decades could be dismantled by the next president.

They're not going to give up any more easily than the unions in Wisconsin because they recognize the stakes.

The successful GOP nominee is going to have to be someone who isn't afraid of rolling his sleeves up and fighting hard. I highly doubt that Romney has that kind of spine.

And Bachmann? Her campaign will be effectively over by the end of September though I highly doubt that she'll admit it until she's thumped in the Iowa caucus.

Bachmann is Palin2, and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability.

That's a bizarre statement. Bachmann fails the beer test. Who would you rather have a beer with - Palin or Bachmann? It's a no-brainer. Bachmann is just a congresswoman who has taken a bunch of doctrinaire positions in the House and never accomplished anything. They're not even in the same league

One more note on Perry: he is a stronger general election than Romney.

You want to know why? Because he did the one thing during his speech announcing his candidacy that I've been waiting for ANY Republican candidate to do that NO ONE else has done: he cited the unemployment numbers for blacks and Hispanics, and noted how much worse they are than the national unemployment rate.

The ONLY thing propping Obama's approval ratings up even at the dismal 39% they are currently is that Obama has something going for him that Bush never did: unwavering support from minorities.

To win the general election decisively, the Republican candidate needs to point out just how horrible Obama and the Democratic Party's policies have been for the very minorities that they claim to be protecting from evil, racist Republicans.

In that speech, Perry signalled loud and strong that he intends to speak to those communities. Even if all he succeeded in doing is softening up that support marginally, it will be enough to destroy any chance that Obama has at re-election.

If you asked me to handicap the race today, I'd say the smart money bet is whether Obama loses by a little or a lot.

46% of the respondents in the Washington Post poll said they would DEFINITELY NOT vote for Obama in 2012 while only 20% said they would.

Any GOP candidate only has to convince 1 out of 6 of this willing to consider someone other than Obama and Obama loses. If they get 1 in 3, it's a landslide on the scale of Reagan-Mondale or Bush-Dukakis.

That's a helluva headstart for any Republican candidate - no matter who the nominee is.

Realistically the field is set. Palin's not going to run: she can read the polls as well as anyone else and she's too smart to take a suicide run in 2012.

If she ran and lost, her entire career comes to a crashing halt. If she ran and won, the media crush would make her presidency 4 years of absolute personal misery for her and her family.

She's going to keep her cushy Fox gig, and keep influencing the debate from her Facebook page. There's no downside for her in not running.

With Perry and Romney both in the field, where does someone else fit? Christie's been governor for about 30 minutes of political lifetime. He's popular with Republicans, but I think he knows he's not yet ready for a presidential run. Give him a few years to marinate. The best case scenario for him would be to come in somewhere between Perry and Romney on the conservatism scale, and then you're looking at an ugly 3-way race down to the wire.

If the pathway were clear, and there were no strong, well-funded contenders in the race there would probably be room for others. But who wants to butt heads with Romney and Perry for the next nine months? Nobody who wants to maintain their viability for 2016 or 2020, that's for sure.

Even if they won, they'd be mortally wounded once they limped out of the primaries.

Better for Republicans and their own political futures if they kept their powder dry and let Romney and Perry duke it out for 2012.

I'm sure that calculation has already been made by those who were thinking about entering the race before Saturday.

I made the comparison to Rollins because Althouse was expressing similar arguments as Rollins.

Rollins is running down Palin vis-a-vis Bachmann because he's been hired to run the campaign, and that's the way he rolls. Attack dog.

Althouse is running down Palin vis-a-vis Bachmann because she likes to stimulate discussion. She plays devil's advocate all the time.

Althouse could easily run a post next week defending Palin. Her point of view jumps around a lot. I see many of her posts as tentative and lightly held opinions, if she holds them at all. On this particular post, she was doing a Rollins.

Bachmann is Palin2, and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability.

Other than saying completely insane things and having no clue what she is doing in Congress, how on earth does Bachmann display gravitas?

Anyone who seriously claims that the debt limit doesn't need to be raised should immediately be dismissed as a candidate and unelectable. What is she going to do as president, refuse to borrow money or issue Treasury notes?

Romney is helped because Palin will not hurt him in New Hampshire. He wins New Hampshire. And Palin helps him because if she's in the race, it dilutes the rest of the field.

Perry is hurt because Palin can compete with him in South Carolina. Palin appeals to Tea Party people, blue collar Republicans, and she can also expect to get Nikki Haley's endorsement.

Bachmann is dead not because Palin will win Iowa (although she might, as Palin will share the governor's endorsement in Iowa). Bachmann is dead because her national Tea Party support jumps ship. And there's no money for her.

You've gone off on this tangent before. The point is to cut the scope of government and balance the budget so that the debt limit is no longer an issue.

I've gone off on this tangent and asked a simple question, and still no one has answered it.

Borrowing is 40-odd percent of the revenue of the Federal Government. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling means an immediate end to government borrowing. How can you cut the Federal Budget 40 percent plus overnight and not devastate the economy?

"Bachmann had one and only one path to the nomination – to unite the 25%-35% of the party who do not want an establishment Republican (not even a “conservative” establishment Republican). The path existed only if Bachmann established herself as a viable candidate on her own and brought with her a coalition which included Palin supporters. Uniting the base not dividing the base should have been Bachmann’s goal.

Instead Bachmann viewed Palin entering the race as a threat and therefore decided that attacking Palin through surrogates was the best tactic, but that was myopic. If Palin enters the race, Bachmann is done regardless of anything Bachmann did or didn’t do; but if Palin does not enter the race Bachmann could have had the chance to lead the coalition. That chance is gone because Bachmann destroyed the coalition, or at least her ability to lead it.

Bachmann will not be the nominee, regardless of whether Palin runs, and Bachmann has no one to blame but herself."

... and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability.

Oh really? The wish is mother to the thought. The media has hardly begun its onslaught on Bachmann. And if Palin gets in (prediction: she will), Bachmann will lose most of her base overnight. Including me.

If there really is a feud, Miss Sarah can put an end to it by endorsing Perry.

Mrs Bachmann's big problem is that a 2 term Congresswoman has no executive and little legislative experience. She has something of a resume, which puts her in a better place than Little Zero 3 years ago, but not by much.

Ann Althouse said...

Bachmann is Palin2, and a big improvement over Palin in terms of gravitas and electability.

As they once opined in Hodson's Horse, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?".

We know Palin brought in all the undecideds and, if the 7 million so-called "Conservatives" hadn't stayed home rather than soil their patties voting for McCain, we might not be in the mess we're in because some people wanted to make a statement rather than listen to what the Man Who Would Stop The Oceans' Rise was really saying, so Ann's dislike for her is understandable.

But Mrs Bachmann has yet to show she has more gravitas (Hell, Little Zero took on Halo Joe to add gravitas) or electability than Miss Sarah for reasons listed above and elsewhere.

PS The usual Democrats show up with their shtick about how Dubya was an inexperienced lightweight (2 terms as TX governor) as opposed to the "policy wiz with a Nixonian head for the business of governing, plus the 12 years in and out in the Arkansas mansion" who was incapable keeping his pants zipped or his hand out of someone else's pocket while creating or exacerbating the problems Dubya had to fix (bin Laden, DotCom, subprime mortgages), and couldn't have survived without the same complicit media who gave us Little Zero.

Yes, Bachmann is very poised, smart and effective in dealing with the press. The left would be foolish to dismiss her, and they'll fail if they to try to brand her as Palin 2.0.

But her responses to gays "living in bondage" and the wives be submissive to your husbands thing were weak. It's not enough to say that you're running for President and not judge of anyone. The fact is, Bachmann has judged gays, publicly and prominently, and the press and Democrats (but I repeat myself) won't let her quietly step away from these statements. She has to find a way to own them and not look judgmental - which is going to be difficult, to say the least.

I also think her recorded statement that she chose a career she didn't really want because her husband told her to, and the Bible says wives should be submissive, is going to dog her to the end. It sounds legitimately kooky, it's enough to make soccer moms and swing voters vote Dem, and trying to equate submission with respect isn't going to cut it.

I guess I'd like to see Palin go one on one with David Gregory for 25 minutes as Bachmann did yesterday.

Give Michelle credit for this....she is not afraid to get into the arena directly with her opponents.

And by opponents I mean the national media now that Palin is a national figure. The fact she hang out on Facebook and Fox isn't doing her any favors if she wanted to run. It is sort of like being in the protective enclave of a shark cage rather than swimming in the open ocean. Sometimes you need to leave the cage to prove to people like myself that you can swim.

Actually, anyone saying that a candidate who says the debt limit shouldn't be raised isn't electable

I hold out the hope that there are enough sane adults in the electorate who are cognizant of the fact that the debt limit must be raised and that not raising it is the height of irresponsibility. Anyone who thinks the Federal government can, or should, stop borrowing money is clearly delusional.

rcocean--you forgot the sarcasm tag on your post above (and I think you did it on purpose)

Some of most "experienced" presidents, all among the list you cited have had great experience, but they failed when in the job. And I think the reason is they were not politicians first; the president needs to be a politician, capable of framing issues, and rallying public support for those issues. Empathy is also a requirement, viz Clinton feigned or not.

The federal bureaucracy is not amenable to administrative leadership from the top; they are there forever, and all they have to do is wait out the sitting president irrespective of his (or her) executive experience.

James Q Wilson's book Bureaucracy is, IMO, a very good description of the reality of the federal bureaucracy.

Recall Harry Truman's comment about Ike: "poor Ike, he will come in and say do this and do that, and nothing will happen." (bad paraphrase, but I think reasonable accurate)

ThaddeusMcCotter is so much better then those two. Has not run a one-pony show against gays, or claimed God told him to run, just gives reasonable, insightful explanations for his views--as a Republican, just a Republican.

Bachmann crowds out Palin only if one sees them both as only representing the "woman" candidate. If that role is filled, there's no place for the other one.

The thread of comments, though, seem to suggest that the conservative commenters here don't see it in those terms, like our blog host does. She sees the category of "the woman" while the commenters care about the distinct experiences and contributions each offers as individual candidates.

This post is interesting, then, as a great example of what the post below was talking about. Is there a 'woman' spot to be filled, or are there two distinct candidates that only crowd each other out as much as any candidate crowds out another?

Was Ann playfully giving us an example of identity politics assumptions or was she unknowingly lured into exposing her own?

Palin is much more a libertarian than Bachmannn. I don't think Palin is running this year but she is more electable, I think.

Far more. Palin's been vetted for 3 years now. We know what's out there.

The "reform the gays" thing promises to be a circus.

Bachmann is going to be owning this quote for a while...

"You're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement. And that is why it’s so dangerous. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan to say this is gay. It’s anything but gay.”

And now she's like, "I'm running for President."

Yeah, but what does Satan say?

I predict "Satan" hecklers, and tranny protesters with devil horns.

I'm sorry, but gay-curing husband just isn't as cool as Iron Dog Todd competing in the Iditarod. Or Palin's son serving in Iraq.

Steve Austin said...I guess I'd like to see Palin go one on one with David Gregory for 25 minutes as Bachmann did yesterday.

Give Michelle credit for this....she is not afraid to get into the arena directly with her opponents.=================Bachmann worked as a lawyer who was a "prosecutor" for the IRS. That gives her good lawyerese oiliness and evasiveness in not getting pinned down and defining herself only when she believes the debate, Q&A ground is on favorable terms to her. She is also smarter than Palin. (Though far more extreme and whackadoodle)

Yes, she is earning it on her own in the Primaries vs. Sarah Palin being annointed with no work on her part by getting the blessing of John McCain and his good judgment. After McCain's 1st choice - pro-abortion, pro-big Gov, pro-affirmative action "special friend" Joe Lieberman - was termed insane and enough to cause staff and delegate defections to give Romney the nomination.

Bachman was totally wrong in not voting against raising the debt ceiling. Chris Wallace, basically called her on it and mentioned the short term ramifications if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. Repubs have been saying that Obama has been using scare tactics (he has) in saying that if the debt ceiling wasn't raised that social security might not get paid. But as Wallace pointed out, if social security was paid, then a whole host of programs (like veteran's benefits) would not be paid. And was she prepared to cut those things. And she had no sufficient answer for that. Look, this gets back to the tea partiers inability to play a long game and there insistence on having everything or nothing.For their edification, the debt ceiling has been raised countless times, and has been done so by people like Ronald Reagan. And we never had to tie it to spending cuts before. So credit Boehner and Ryan (and tea partiers) for pushing us in that direction.But that is step one of ten, not step ten. Why can't tea partiers get it through their heads that losing short term will in fact also effect the longer term strategies? Short term, we need to pay our bills NOW. It is the fault of Obama for maxing out our credit cards, but it doesn't change our short term obligations. And yes, long term we need to reign in spending and get control of Washington. But not at the cost of being blamed for shutting down govt and depriving veterans of benefits. Michelle is just obstinate about making the case for reigning in spending in the short term when we have to pay our bills.It's a three step process, but we will not reduce govt spending or get a balanced budget, unless we get more govt spending cutters into positions of power, and that will not happen until we win elections, and that will not happen if Obama and the media say that republicans are obstinately shutting down govt. When in fact, the refusal to play ball IS being obstinate. Yes, Michelle,we all get that we want spending cut, but if you shut down the govt by refusing to raise the debt ceiling (even though it has been done before and even though short term we NEED to pay our bills) , but don't get Obama to actually agree to meaningful spending cuts, what have you achieved? It's not even a pyyric victory. It's simply a loss. (this is reference to the vote on raising the debt ceiling)Long game, not short game. Chess not checkers. Marathon not sprint. I'm in agreement with the tea partiers on the need to reign in govt. But I'm starting to get exasperated at tea partiers refusal to think strategically.

Saint Croix said...Palin is much more a libertarian than Bachmannn. I don't think Palin is running this year but she is more electable, I think.

Far more. Palin's been vetted for 3 years now. We know what's out there. ===================The truth is Palin was never in the Primaries, tried to avoid interviews as much as possible. Her scripted "red meat" speeches went over well, but as with Obama, much of the credit goes to the Writing Team.Then she quit her elected official job and became a media maven behind the protective cocoon of Fox, her Tweet advisors, and Palin's ghostwiters and her trusted reality TV show inner staff.

"Being in the public eye" does not equal "being vetted". Unless you think George Clooney is ready to be president as he is well-vetted by being in the public eye and speaking at venues.

"Congress cannot and should not vote to increase the borrowing limit for the government unless serious steps are taken to reduce spending" - Michelle Bachman

Ok, I'd like to introduce the idea of half a loaf to Bachman and tea partiers. First, we have short term obligations irrespective of whether we also have spending issues in Washington.

Chris Wallace asked: Bipartisan Policy Center analysis found that after you pay creditors, social security, Medicare and military, you would have to cut 68 percent from all these other programs. Would you have been willing to gut these programs outside of creditors, social security and Medicare?

Short term, we'd have to gut these other programs 68 percent because we need the money immediately. It is true that Obama's overspending brought us to this, but that doesn't negate the fact that were we to cut those programs by 68 percent, and that republicans would be viewed as shutting down govt.

Michelle's response is: Doesn’t that tell you how bad off the U.S. is, that we are overspending that much? We have to grow the revenue side. We need to embrace pro-growth policies. One thing we need to do is reject the new normal level of spending under President Obama. He ramped up spending. Should we accept those new levels?Well sure it tells us that we are overspending. And sure we need to embrace pro growth policies and grow the revenue side. But that is a long term goal. Grow the revenue side requires, growth. Growth doesn't happen with one vote. And in order to embrace pro growth policies, we need politicians in office who understand that. Do you think Obama or the deems understand that? Since they control the Senate and the White House, and don't understand pro growth policies (except for growing govt) then you can scream into the wind and cry like a baby, but it's not going to get done. So she's confusing the long term strategy with the short term necessity. ONly holding 1/3 of govt, we'd be lucky to even get the half a loaf, yet Ryan and Boehner, basically got more than half a loaf. It certainly wasn't perfect, and one could argue that the spending cuts aren't meaningful enough. that's why this is one vote, and simply getting republicans foot in the door. Once in they can use it as a springboard to get more like minded people in to actually get the meaningful cuts. But why is Bachmann refusing to even get the half a loaf and potentially undercutting Boehner and Ryan, since she will never possibly get the revenue growth she wants so long as Obama is in the white house. So, suppose that she got her way and Boehners' bill didn't pass. She still wouldn't get her revenue growth, and she also would be blamed for shutting down govt.

In the public eye? The press is moving in next door to her and pouring through her e-mails. That's what I meant by "vetted."

All that stuff is behind Palin. She doesn't need the press now. She can ignore them.

All the bad stuff is in front of Bachmann. She needs the press. She's desperate for press. So she is going to have to put up with "Queen of Mean" and "gay converter" and "submit to your husband." It's just started, and it will build.

You understand the the Katie Couric interview was edited to make Palin appear as bad as possible?

Just like the Newsweek cover was chosen to make Bachmann look as bad as possible.

That's the way the liberals roll.

The way Republicans respond--dating back to Reagan, who was the master at this--is to refuse to participate. You cut out the New York Times, you cut out anybody who has an agenda of making you look bad.

Palin was awesome in her debate with Biden and I think she will be fine in all the primary debates, too.

I suppose one could make the case that Obama reigns in spending, or perhaps the Appropriations Chairmen, or even congressfolk in general, but from context, I doubt this is the intent. If you would like spending to be restrained, you should try to "rein in spending".

"I don't particularly care how well candidates do with gotcha press questions. "

Oh good grief. If you mean, what a pathetically terrible way to help select a president, I couldn't agree more. But what part of like it or not, it's a big part of what the still-influential press will try to do don't you understand?

There are no 'gotcha' questions. There are questions and they must be answered. If a candidate cannot do that then maybe they should not run for President. It is all about preparing. If one cannot prepare for tough questions then that is a sign they should not be elected to the position.